Merged why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.

[ChristianProgressive]

3. The list will not be complete
Everyone on that list was given the opportunity to have their names suppressed before release, and those who did were mostly successful in doing so. Therefore, most, if not all of the names on the list that will be released are likely to be those with nothing to hide... and the names of those who do have something to hide will not be on the list when it is released.

Most of the still-redacted names are those of victims and others with no legal culpuability for what happened.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Donald Trump and Bill Clinton will be on the list, and MAGAts will tell us how this is bad for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Well that didn't age well at all. But yes, the MAGA folks are definitely laughing at the pervs along with the urgency of the main stream media to sweep this under the rug ASAP.

The question is why is this release of information not gaining any traction in the main stream media? Could it be because there are too many Leftists on the list?

Or more likely, the list was missing the one name they wanted to see most.

 

[smartcooky]

Most of the still-redacted names are those of victims and others with no legal culpuability for what happened.

Evidence?

You know the names of people who have been redacted from that list? If so, post them. If you are in America and are afraid the FBI will come after you for posting their names., PM the list to me. I'm not subject to US Law, so I will post them on my Facebook page, and provide a link to my page.

 

[smartcooky]

Well that didn't age well at all.

Yes, it did, exactly as predicted by pgwenthold

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-clinton-marjorie-taylor-greene-b2472112.html

Maga lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene has conveniently ignored Donald Trump’s ties to late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein while lashing out at Bill Clinton for his.​

But yes, the MAGA folks are definitely laughing at the pervs along with the urgency of the main stream media to sweep this under the rug ASAP. The question is why is this release of information not gaining any traction in the main stream media?

Quite the opposite in fact. MSM are actually (and wrongly) making this out to be a lot more important than it really is.

Could it be because there are too many Leftists on the list?

A list of these so called "leftists" would be evidence. I mean sure, Bill Clinton and some of the actors, although I would not call Bruce Willis (an invited speaker at the 2000 Republican National Convention, and supporter George W. Bush that year. In 2006, he stated that the United States should intervene more in Colombia in order to end drug trafficking) a leftist by any stretch)

If you have evidence of the political persuasions of others on the list, I'm all ears

Or more likely, the list was missing the one name they wanted to see most.

And which name would that be?

 

[varwoche]

Well that didn't age well at all. But yes, the MAGA folks are definitely laughing at the pervs along with the urgency of the main stream media to sweep this under the rug ASAP.

The question is why is this release of information not gaining any traction in the main stream media? Could it be because there are too many Leftists on the list?

Or more likely, the list was missing the one name they wanted to see most.

Huh? What dimension do you occupy? The media, e.g. MSNBC and CNN, were all over it until it turned out to be a dud. Excessively so, because it's so sensational.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Well that didn't age well at all. But yes, the MAGA folks are definitely laughing at the pervs along with the urgency of the main stream media to sweep this under the rug ASAP.

The question is why is this release of information not gaining any traction in the main stream media? Could it be because there are too many Leftists on the list?

Or more likely, the list was missing the one name they wanted to see most.

How many suns are there for your planet?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

emails and texts arranging or discussing anything, and financial documents tracking any kind of payments made for services requested or rendered

Highly doubt either of those exist or the whole thing would have been much easier to spot and topple.

Also note that Epstein is not Heidi Fleiss.
As far as we know, most of the stories that were released did not involve him selling the victims with some price chart. They involved mostly himself and only several close friends were actually named - namely Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. While it is very likely there are more names, I don't think any of them just passed by and paid for services directly.

So again, while I have no doubt in my mind there are many other monsters involved with this story - I doubt there is that much evidence and people just look away or even some conspiracy coverup.

My hope would be that Maxwell will eventually tell everything. But I don't think that is likely to happen anytime soon if at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? What evidence could they have?

Surveilance video from Epstein's New York residence, for example. We know he had cameras all over. He ran things as if he had blackmail material on people. Do you really think he didn't? I don't.

Other than that? If Epstein had it videotaped or Maxwell have an official black book we would have heard it by now.

Would we have?

I don't share your confidence in that at all. I find it quite easy to believe the FBI buried that stuff. Here's the kicker: I don't think there's actually any laws on the books that would make it illegal for them from doing that. We know for certain that the DoJ went easy on Epstein back in 2008. Is it really a stretch to think they're going easy on his accomplices now?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Surveilance video from Epstein's New York residence, for example. We know he had cameras all over. He ran things as if he had blackmail material on people. Do you really think he didn't? I don't.

I'm not doubting he did. I'm doubting the FBI has access to it.
Epstein was interrogated in 2005 already - he knows what law enforcement would do for its first steps and make sure not to put anything in plain sight.

Would we have?

If the materials were just lying around in his apartment? Yes, we likely would have. It's literally the same issue as any conspiracy theory like 9\11 or the moon landing. Too many people are involved that the idea that all of them keep their mouth shut is practically impossible.

Also if there is clear and cut evidence, it could very well be Maxwell's ticket to a a deal to reduce her sentence not to mention potentially other people who were involved there like staff.

I don't share your confidence in that at all. I find it quite easy to believe the FBI buried that stuff.

That is conspiracy talk. The FBI is not a single person. It is an organization made of many people. The idea that all of them decide to magically cooperate because what exactly?
Their career are threatened? That threat never works over a long period with so many people because literally anyone who decides to leave has nothing to lose.
They were all under payments? Unlikely and leaves more evidence.
They all decided that they are willing to protect some individual? Really?
Let's say a former president was involved. Clinton or Trump, doesn't matter. You're telling me that everyone involved were on the exact same political side?

Far more likely that there's at least one person on the other political side who would super easily anonymously leak the tape to some news source.

Here's the kicker: I don't think there's actually any laws on the books that would make it illegal for them from doing that. We know for certain that the DoJ went easy on Epstein back in 2008. Is it really a stretch to think they're going easy on his accomplices now?

When I mentioned laws, I meant that they can't just tell the press "We know X was involved" unless they have evidence.

I don't believe there is any law that says they have to charge someone with anything.

As for cutting Epstein some slack, sure. Because he is a rich powerful white man and back in 2008 sexual predators weren't "that big of a deal".
We're in 2023. It's a different time.

But he was investigated and it was public record - even back then.




To make the short version - It's Occam's razor - the simplest explanation with fewest entities is the most likely one.

What is the simpler story here?
That the FBI just doesn't have conclusive evidence against anyone else?

Or that they do have evidence but keep it quiet because of some conspiracy that must entangle each and every person in and outside the organization that was involved from the top to the bottom?

 

[Thermal]

I'm not doubting he did. I'm doubting the FBI has access to it.
Epstein was interrogated in 2005 already - he knows what law enforcement would do for its first steps and make sure not to put anything in plain sight.



If the materials were just lying around in his apartment? Yes, we likely would have. It's literally the same issue as any conspiracy theory like 9\11 or the moon landing. Too many people are involved that the idea that all of them keep their mouth shut is practically impossible.

Also if there is clear and cut evidence, it could very well be Maxwell's ticket to a a deal to reduce her sentence not to mention potentially other people who were involved there like staff.


That is conspiracy talk. The FBI is not a single person. It is an organization made of many people. The idea that all of them decide to magically cooperate because what exactly?
Their career are threatened? That threat never works over a long period with so many people because literally anyone who decides to leave has nothing to lose.
They were all under payments? Unlikely and leaves more evidence.
They all decided that they are willing to protect some individual? Really?
Let's say a former president was involved. Clinton or Trump, doesn't matter. You're telling me that everyone involved were on the exact same political side?

Far more likely that there's at least one person on the other political side who would super easily anonymously leak the tape to some news source.


When I mentioned laws, I meant that they can't just tell the press "We know X was involved" unless they have evidence.

I don't believe there is any law that says they have to charge someone with anything.

As for cutting Epstein some slack, sure. Because he is a rich powerful white man and back in 2008 sexual predators weren't "that big of a deal".
We're in 2023. It's a different time.

But he was investigated and it was public record - even back then.




To make the short version - It's Occam's razor - the simplest explanation with fewest entities is the most likely one.

What is the simpler story here?
That the FBI just doesn't have conclusive evidence against anyone else?

Or that they do have evidence but keep it quiet because of some conspiracy that must entangle each and every person in and outside the organization that was involved from the top to the bottom?

Re: quibble over Occam's Razor: it doesn't state that the simplest solution is the most likely. It means the one that requires the fewest assumptions is better. In short, making stuff up for a premise to work out is bad, but complexity is not the barometer.

 

[smartcooky]

Would we have?

I don't share your confidence in that at all. I find it quite easy to believe the FBI buried that stuff. Here's the kicker: I don't think there's actually any laws on the books that would make it illegal for them from doing that. We know for certain that the DoJ went easy on Epstein back in 2008. Is it really a stretch to think they're going easy on his accomplices now?

I think you are probably right, but for the wrong reasons.

The most likely reason we haven't seen Maxwells black book, if it even exists at all, is because she has hidden it or destroyed it.

This is a woman who tried to avoid being found, to the extent that she went into hiding at a remote location, and wrapped her phone in tin foil to try to prevent it being tracked. There are any number of places she could have hidden it such as a safe deposit box. She could even have sent it to someone in another country, say the UK, for safe keeping.

Remember too, despite all the testimony in the lawsuits brought by Virginia Roberts-Giuffre against her and against Prince Andrew, and in her criminal trial, she has always claimed to be innocent of any sexual abuse herself, and that she had no knowledge of what Epstein was accused of. If that black book really exists, the chances are that it will remain hidden and she will never release its contents unless she has a lot to gain by doing so. Releasing it now would be an admission that she knew, which would be a very bad idea while she maintains her innocence during the lead up to an appeal decision by a federal appeals court.

If her appeal was to fail, only then might she use it as a bargaining chip to get (very) early parole.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Yes, it did, exactly as predicted by pgwenthold

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-clinton-marjorie-taylor-greene-b2472112.html

Maga lawmaker Marjorie Taylor Greene has conveniently ignored Donald Trump’s ties to late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein while lashing out at Bill Clinton for his.​

Quite the opposite in fact. MSM are actually (and wrongly) making this out to be a lot more important than it really is.



A list of these so called "leftists" would be evidence. I mean sure, Bill Clinton and some of the actors, although I would not call Bruce Willis (an invited speaker at the 2000 Republican National Convention, and supporter George W. Bush that year. In 2006, he stated that the United States should intervene more in Colombia in order to end drug trafficking) a leftist by any stretch)

If you have evidence of the political persuasions of others on the list, I'm all ears



And which name would that be?

If you have evidence to prove Trump was a "client" and visited Epstein's Island, please do tell. Otherwise, it's just another TDS fueled fantasy of wishful thinking. The Court documents do not provide what the media was hoping for and yes, you well know who it was they wanted to see as a "client" of the Epstein's Island lolita sexcapades.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

How many suns are there for your planet?

Just the one.

 

[smartcooky]

If you have evidence to prove Trump was a "client" and visited Epstein's Island, please do tell.

Well, we have evidence that The Fat Orange Prolapsed Anus was on the "Lolita Express" because he's listed in the flight logs.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north...e/news-story/7d757c7c93c1ba440b2bacd1db7aec76

The Court documents do not provide what the media was hoping for and yes, you well know who it was they wanted to see as a "client" of the Epstein's Island lolita sexcapades.

Literally NO media outfit was "hoping" for anything. Quite the opposite in fact - they have been at pains to point out that appearance on the list or on the "Lolita Express" flight logs is not evidence of anything.

The reality is that evidence Bill Clinton was a client of Epstein IS EXACTLY THE SAME as the evidence The Fat Orange Prolapsed Anus was a client.

Of course, as you're a conspiracy theorist, reality is something you are likely to be entirely divorced from.

 

[gabeygoat]

Of course. This should be processed like any other criminal investigation and so far it is.

My only issue from a skeptic's perspective is the public hysteria of the thought of anybody having had coffee with Epstein's dog. It goes hand in hand with "Epstein didn't kill himself" and general anti-elitist conspiracism. You can't have a normal conversation about this case when someone brings it up IRL from my experience.

Dude, everyone knows Epstein's dog ****** everything

 

[smartcooky]

If you have evidence to prove Trump was a "client" and visited Epstein's Island.

Just to address one more thing.

You seem to be under the illusion that Epstein only committed these acts, or arranged his friends to have sex with under-aged girls on his island. If that is what you believe, then you clearly have no understanding of this case.

These vile acts took place at ALL of this properties

- 9 East 71st Street, New York
- Zorro Ranch, New Mexico.
- Little St. James Island, US Virgin Islands.
- 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida.
- 16 Avenue Foch, Paris.

and at Ghislaine Maxwell's properties as well

- Kinnerton Street, Belgravia, London.
- 116 East 65th Street in Lenox Hill, New York
- 301 Summer Street, Manhattan, New York
- 338 E Washington Rd, Bradford, New Hampshire

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If the FBI or whoever are concealing more names of perpetrators, is there any reason why the victims of those perpetrators cannot come forward?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Dude, everyone knows Epstein's dog ****** everything

...which is a good reason not to drink coffee with him.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

If the FBI or whoever are concealing more names of perpetrators, is there any reason why the victims of those perpetrators cannot come forward?

If I'd have to play devil's advocate? I'd say threats, intimidation and the fact that in general sexual abuse survivors are not likely to come forward due to the fear of how the public would treat them.

Add that the abusers are rich and powerful people and it gives you more reasons why the victims don't speak up.

Add the conspiracy theories that people killed Epstein in prison and you get even more scared to come forward.


So if in the hypothetical conspiracy scenario, there is someone powerful enough to get the FBI not expose them - I don't see how they can't be powerful enough to scare a young woman from a poor background (how Epstein picked them)

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Re: quibble over Occam's Razor: it doesn't state that the simplest solution is the most likely. It means the one that requires the fewest assumptions is better. In short, making stuff up for a premise to work out is bad, but complexity is not the barometer.

You're correct, this is more about English not being my native tongue. This is what I meant by requiring the least amount of entities.